Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date: 2011-02-26 22:01:45
Message-ID: 4D697849.8050606@cs.helsinki.fi (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2011-02-26 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> IMO the major disadvantage of a refactoring like this is the possibility
> of sins of omission in third-party code, in particular somebody not
> noticing the added requirement to call ExecutorFinish.  We could help
> them out by adding an Assert in ExecutorEnd to verify that
> ExecutorFinish had been called (unless explain-only mode).  A variant of
> that problem is an auto_explain-like add-on not noticing that they
> probably want to hook into ExecutorFinish if they'd previously been
> hooking ExecutorRun.  I don't see any simple check for that though.
> The other possible failure mode is forgetting to remove calls to the two
> trigger functions, but we could encourage getting that right by renaming
> those two functions.

While I don't really like the possibility of breaking third party 
modules, I think the idea is good.  Also +1 for adding checks where 
possible.


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2011-02-26 22:49:44
Subject: Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-26 21:31:38
Subject: Re: Generalized edit function?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group